We hold that the University was not entitled and competent to devise its own fee structure in the present matter without having the fee fixed by the Committee on Fixation of Fee as contemplated under 1992 Act.

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6654 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.30567 of 2016) M. Aamira Fathima and Others ………Appellants VERSUS Annamalai University and Others ..…. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6655-56 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.30658-30659… Read More We hold that the University was not entitled and competent to devise its own fee structure in the present matter without having the fee fixed by the Committee on Fixation of Fee as contemplated under 1992 Act.

Law, enacted for the benefit of the society by conferring rights on the citizens and to regulate social behaviour in many a sphere, is required to be implemented by the law enforcing agencies and the citizens are duty bound to follow the law treating it as sacred. Law has to be regarded as the foundation of a civilized society. The primary goal of law is to have an orderly society where the citizenry dreams for change and progress is realized and the individual aspiration finds space for expression of his/her potential.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 754 OF 2016 Tehseen S. Poonawalla …Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India and others …Respondent(s) W I T H WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) N0. 764 OF 2016 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) N0. 768 OF 2016 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) N0. 732 OF 2017 WRIT PETITION… Read More Law, enacted for the benefit of the society by conferring rights on the citizens and to regulate social behaviour in many a sphere, is required to be implemented by the law enforcing agencies and the citizens are duty bound to follow the law treating it as sacred. Law has to be regarded as the foundation of a civilized society. The primary goal of law is to have an orderly society where the citizenry dreams for change and progress is realized and the individual aspiration finds space for expression of his/her potential.

“no totalizer seal” = respondent accordingly set up his petrol pump in the name and style of M/s Lakshmi Service Station at GST Road, Kooteripattu Town (Tamil Nadu) and started selling petroleum products of IOC. 8) On 01.08.2008, Deputy Inspector of Labour (Weights & Measures) carried out an inspection of the respondent’s petrol pump. It was followed by another inspection carried out by the Sales Officer of the IOC on 02.08.2008. In these two inspections, it was noticed that “totalizer wires of L&T Line DU in petrol pump model serial No.1578 used at MS 2 pump was 3 found cut”. In other words, in these inspections, “no totalizer seal” was found in place. = whether the respondent’s dealership should be restored or not and, if so, on what grounds. The IOC considered the case of the respondent and after taking into account all the facts and circumstances appearing in the respondent’s working, came to a conclusion that it was not possible for them to restore his dealership.- In our opinion, the writ Court (Single Judge) was, therefore, justified in dismissing the respondent’s writ petition and upholding the rejection on the ground that the High Court cannot interfere in the administrative decision of IOC and nor it can substitute its decision by acting as an Appellate Court over such decision in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is more so when such decision is based on reasons involving no arbitrariness of any nature therein which may call for any interference by the High Court.- In the light of what is discussed above, we are of the considered view that the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Single Judge is just and proper, whereas the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench is not proper and hence deserves to be set aside.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6748 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.33100 of 2015] Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. .. Appellant(s) Versus T. Natarajan .. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal is… Read More “no totalizer seal” = respondent accordingly set up his petrol pump in the name and style of M/s Lakshmi Service Station at GST Road, Kooteripattu Town (Tamil Nadu) and started selling petroleum products of IOC. 8) On 01.08.2008, Deputy Inspector of Labour (Weights & Measures) carried out an inspection of the respondent’s petrol pump. It was followed by another inspection carried out by the Sales Officer of the IOC on 02.08.2008. In these two inspections, it was noticed that “totalizer wires of L&T Line DU in petrol pump model serial No.1578 used at MS 2 pump was 3 found cut”. In other words, in these inspections, “no totalizer seal” was found in place. = whether the respondent’s dealership should be restored or not and, if so, on what grounds. The IOC considered the case of the respondent and after taking into account all the facts and circumstances appearing in the respondent’s working, came to a conclusion that it was not possible for them to restore his dealership.- In our opinion, the writ Court (Single Judge) was, therefore, justified in dismissing the respondent’s writ petition and upholding the rejection on the ground that the High Court cannot interfere in the administrative decision of IOC and nor it can substitute its decision by acting as an Appellate Court over such decision in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is more so when such decision is based on reasons involving no arbitrariness of any nature therein which may call for any interference by the High Court.- In the light of what is discussed above, we are of the considered view that the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Single Judge is just and proper, whereas the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench is not proper and hence deserves to be set aside.

In the case in hand, the accused have not offered any explanation to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. On the other hand, from the evidence of PW-1 that accused No.1 demanded the bribe appears to be natural. The application for approval of revised plan was earlier rejected. When the complainant and his advocate met TDO and on whose direction PW-1 has paid the requisite fine amount, the file has to necessarily move. It was at that point of time accused No.1 demanded bribe amount from PW-1. While appreciating the evidence, the High Court should have given proper weight to the views of the trial court as to the credibility of all evidence of PWs 1 and 3. When the findings recorded by the trial court is based upon appreciation of evidence, the High Court was not right in reversing the judgment of the trial court

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.895-896 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.8259-60 of 2016) THE STATE OF GUJARAT …Appellant Versus NAVINBHAI CHANDRAKANT JOSHI ETC. …Respondents J U D G M E N T R. BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated… Read More In the case in hand, the accused have not offered any explanation to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. On the other hand, from the evidence of PW-1 that accused No.1 demanded the bribe appears to be natural. The application for approval of revised plan was earlier rejected. When the complainant and his advocate met TDO and on whose direction PW-1 has paid the requisite fine amount, the file has to necessarily move. It was at that point of time accused No.1 demanded bribe amount from PW-1. While appreciating the evidence, the High Court should have given proper weight to the views of the trial court as to the credibility of all evidence of PWs 1 and 3. When the findings recorded by the trial court is based upon appreciation of evidence, the High Court was not right in reversing the judgment of the trial court

Section 245 of the Code and prayed for their discharge. = The remedy of the appellants is to contest the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 on merits. = In our opinion, both the Courts below were justified in dismissing the appellants’ petition filed under Section 245 of the Code and the application filed under Section 482 of the Code. We also do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order. It is really unfortunate that the complaint filed in the year 2001 by respondent No. 2 (wife) is not yet decided on merits and has remained pending for such a long time on a technical plea.

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1955 OF 2009 Nayan Prasad & Ors. … Appellant(s) Versus State of Bihar & Anr.       … Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants(accused) against   the   final … Read More Section 245 of the Code and prayed for their discharge. = The remedy of the appellants is to contest the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 on merits. = In our opinion, both the Courts below were justified in dismissing the appellants’ petition filed under Section 245 of the Code and the application filed under Section 482 of the Code. We also do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order. It is really unfortunate that the complaint filed in the year 2001 by respondent No. 2 (wife) is not yet decided on merits and has remained pending for such a long time on a technical plea.

The respondents claiming to be the workmen of the appellants filed applications under Section 33­C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 before the Labour Court No. 2, Bombay (for short, “the Labour Court”) against the appellants claiming overtime wages for the work claimed to have been done by them in discharge of their duties for the period 1986 to 1990.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5152 OF 2017 Currency Note Press & Anr. .. Appellant(s) Versus N.N. Sardesai & Ors. .. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 21.10.2011… Read More The respondents claiming to be the workmen of the appellants filed applications under Section 33­C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 before the Labour Court No. 2, Bombay (for short, “the Labour Court”) against the appellants claiming overtime wages for the work claimed to have been done by them in discharge of their duties for the period 1986 to 1990.

writ of habeas corpus for production of his 2 minor daughter M (assumed name), who was about 3 years of age at the time of filing of the writ petition and for a direction for return of M to the jurisdiction of the competent Court in the United States of America in compliance with the order dated 13th January, 2017 passed by the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, USA, came to be allowed.= A fortiori, dependant on the outcome of the proceedings, before the Family Court at New Delhi, the appellant may then be legally obliged to participate in the proceedings before the US Court and must take all measures to effectively defend herself in the said proceedings by engaging solicitors of her choice in the USA to espouse her cause before the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, USA. In that event, the respondent No.2 shall bear the cost of litigation and expenses to be incurred by the appellant to pursue the proceedings before the Courts in the native country. In addition, the respondent No.2 will bear the air fares or purchase the tickets for the travel of the appellant and the minor child M to the USA and including their return journey for India, as may be required. The respondent No.2 shall also make all suitable arrangements for the comfortable stay of the appellant and her companions at an independent place of her choice, at a reasonable cost. Further, the respondent No.2 shall not initiate any coercive/penal action against the appellant and if any such proceeding initiated by him in that regard is pending, the same shall be withdrawn and not pursued before the concerned Court any further. That will be the condition precedent to facilitate the appellant to appear before the Courts in the USA to effectively defend herself on all matters relating to the matrimonial dispute and including custody and guardianship of the minor child. The appellant and respondent No.2 must ensure early disposal of the proceedings for grant of custody of the minor girl child to the appellant, instituted and pending before the Family Court at Patiala House, New Delhi. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and orders of the High Court and dispose of the writ petition in the aforementioned terms.

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 635­640 OF 2018 Mrs. Kanika Goel       …..Appellant(s) :Versus: State of Delhi through S.H.O. and Anr.               ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. These appeals take exception to… Read More writ of habeas corpus for production of his 2 minor daughter M (assumed name), who was about 3 years of age at the time of filing of the writ petition and for a direction for return of M to the jurisdiction of the competent Court in the United States of America in compliance with the order dated 13th January, 2017 passed by the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, USA, came to be allowed.= A fortiori, dependant on the outcome of the proceedings, before the Family Court at New Delhi, the appellant may then be legally obliged to participate in the proceedings before the US Court and must take all measures to effectively defend herself in the said proceedings by engaging solicitors of her choice in the USA to espouse her cause before the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, USA. In that event, the respondent No.2 shall bear the cost of litigation and expenses to be incurred by the appellant to pursue the proceedings before the Courts in the native country. In addition, the respondent No.2 will bear the air fares or purchase the tickets for the travel of the appellant and the minor child M to the USA and including their return journey for India, as may be required. The respondent No.2 shall also make all suitable arrangements for the comfortable stay of the appellant and her companions at an independent place of her choice, at a reasonable cost. Further, the respondent No.2 shall not initiate any coercive/penal action against the appellant and if any such proceeding initiated by him in that regard is pending, the same shall be withdrawn and not pursued before the concerned Court any further. That will be the condition precedent to facilitate the appellant to appear before the Courts in the USA to effectively defend herself on all matters relating to the matrimonial dispute and including custody and guardianship of the minor child. The appellant and respondent No.2 must ensure early disposal of the proceedings for grant of custody of the minor girl child to the appellant, instituted and pending before the Family Court at Patiala House, New Delhi. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and orders of the High Court and dispose of the writ petition in the aforementioned terms.

The boundary dispute between Assam and Nagaland forms the subject matter of the Suit before this Court.= Order VII Rule 14 provides thus: “Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is 1presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” – we see no reason to disallow the production of the maps. The evidence of PW 9 is being recorded. Production of the above documents by the witness for the Survey of India should, in our view, be allowed in the 4 interest of justice. The documents were not in the possession of the applicant and the earlier order of this Court will not preclude the State of Assam from seeking production at this stage. We, however, clarify that we have not dealt with the relevance or admissibility of the documents. It would be open to the State of Nagaland to raise such objections as it is advised to raise and all appropriate defences.

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IA NO 80789 OF 2017 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.2 OF 1988 STATE OF ASSAM ..PLAINTIFF VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..DEFENDANTS J U D G M E N T Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J 1 The boundary dispute between Assam and Nagaland forms the subject… Read More The boundary dispute between Assam and Nagaland forms the subject matter of the Suit before this Court.= Order VII Rule 14 provides thus: “Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is 1presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” – we see no reason to disallow the production of the maps. The evidence of PW 9 is being recorded. Production of the above documents by the witness for the Survey of India should, in our view, be allowed in the 4 interest of justice. The documents were not in the possession of the applicant and the earlier order of this Court will not preclude the State of Assam from seeking production at this stage. We, however, clarify that we have not dealt with the relevance or admissibility of the documents. It would be open to the State of Nagaland to raise such objections as it is advised to raise and all appropriate defences.

whether the provisions of Section 3(4) of the National Security Act, 1980, requiring the detaining authority to report the detention to the State Government ‘forthwith,’ have been violated.= the act of reporting the detention after five days was in violation of Section 3(4). The District Magistrate did not furnish any reason whatsoever for having taken five days to report the detention to the state government. No justification was sought to be established for the delay in reporting the detention to the state government. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition. In consequence, the order of detention shall stand set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.3424 of 2018) HETCHIN HAOKIP ..Appellant VERSUS STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS ..Respondents J U D G M E N T Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J 1. Leave granted. 2. These proceedings have arisen from… Read More whether the provisions of Section 3(4) of the National Security Act, 1980, requiring the detaining authority to report the detention to the State Government ‘forthwith,’ have been violated.= the act of reporting the detention after five days was in violation of Section 3(4). The District Magistrate did not furnish any reason whatsoever for having taken five days to report the detention to the state government. No justification was sought to be established for the delay in reporting the detention to the state government. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition. In consequence, the order of detention shall stand set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed.